On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > -1 > > The good: > > * Verified all signatures and checksums. > * Ran continuous ingest with binary artifact + custom built native maps. > > > The issues, but not enough to vote against: > > * Encountered ACCUMULO-2741. > * Encountered ACCUMULO-2742. > * Source artifact missing .gitignore > ** This has been discussed, and I'm voting for precedent here. We can agree > to disagree, and if this vote passes then a new precedent will have been > set. > > > The bad: > > * CHANGES file contains changes for 1.5.0 and 1.4.0 (BAD) > ** Past discussion here: http://markmail.org/message/ulvovup36uaa2cav > ** It seems like we agreed to only include changes from the current major > release line, but that is not 100% clear.
My understanding from that prior conversation is that, with the way we use JIRA to mark things as fixed in the latest major release and enumerating the fix versions to denote all the bugfix releases in which it was fixed, meant that we can cover the entire CHANGE history (after a certain point) by including only the major releases, and the bugfixes since the last major one. Therefore, since this is a major release, I included the 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 changes also. Anything fixed in 1.5.1 would also be marked as fixed for 1.6.0 (if it still applied), so the 1.6.0 changes include those and 1.5.1 is not needed to list separately. This was not done for 1.5.0, because we hadn't discussed it then. It seems you came to a different understanding from that conversation. If I understand you correctly, it would mean we should only include 1.6.0 changes? If that's the case, do you think a -1 is warranted for including more than necessary (1.4.0 and 1.5.0)? > > * Missing licence headers: > ** README > ** conf/examples/crypto/readme.txt > ** test/compat/japi-compliance/README > ** test/system/continuous/ScaleTest.odp > ** > docs/src/main/latex/common/state_diagrams/HDFS_WAL_states.odg > > ** > docs/src/main/latex/common/state_diagrams/HDFS_WAL_states.pdf > > ** > docs/src/main/latex/common/state_diagrams/tablet_states.odg > > ** docs/src/main/latex/common/state_diagrams/tablet_states.pdf The rat check plugin typically ignores README/NOTICE/LICENSE files as category "N" (for Notices). That's why it ignored the japi-compliance/README and conf/examples/crypto/readme.txt. I think it's expected that the LICENSE file covers them. At the very least, I don't think they contain anything copyrightable that would necessitate a license. But, for consistency, maybe we should add it anyway? I'm not sure that consistency argument warrants blockage (for me), though. The rest were ignored because the rat check does not check binary files. These files should be covered by the LICENSE/NOTICE files. Binary document files may or may not be capable of supporting license metadata, in general, but I think the coverage by the LICENSE/NOTICE files is sufficient. However, we can do additional things with these files. The ScaleTest.odp could probably be converted to markdown, with a license header. The state_diagrams are not used anywhere in the LaTeX generation (leftover from old developer manual?), and could probably be deleted or moved to the website or wiki, if they are needed at all. I'm not sure which option is best. However, again, I'd consider the LICENSE/NOTICE files sufficient, so as not to block, especially since they didn't block any previous release (presumably because LICENSE/NOTICE covered them), and they've been around awhile.
